The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal.I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.That makes things a lot harder for editors of the less prestigious journals, and that's why I am more inclined to take on reviews from them.
The only other factor I pay attention to is the scientific integrity of the journal.I would not want to review for a journal that does not offer an unbiased review process.Tags: How To Do Outline For Research PaperPediatric Personal Statements For ResidencyBusiness Administration Thesis ProposalsFairy Tale Writing PaperNumber Rules When Writing EssaysAct Of Kindness Essay SpmEssays On Military DutyMartin Luther King Autobiography Book ReportEssay On Hard Work Brings Success
Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work? To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? (Then, throughout, if what I am reading is only partly comprehensible, I do not spend a lot of energy trying to make sense of it, but in my review I will relay the ambiguities to the author.) I should also have a good idea of the hypothesis and context within the first few pages, and it matters whether the hypothesis makes sense or is interesting. I do not focus so much on the statistics—a quality journal should have professional statistics review for any accepted manuscript—but I consider all the other logistics of study design where it’s easy to hide a fatal flaw.
Mostly I am concerned with credibility: Could this methodology have answered their question?
Unless it’s for a journal I know well, the first thing I do is check what format the journal prefers the review to be in.
Some journals have structured review criteria; others just ask for general and specific comments. I almost never print out papers for review; I prefer to work with the electronic version.
First, I consider how the question being addressed fits into the current status of our knowledge.
Second, I ponder how well the work that was conducted actually addresses the central question posed in the paper.I see it as a tit-for-tat duty: Since I am an active researcher and I submit papers, hoping for really helpful, constructive comments, it just makes sense that I do the same for others.So accepting an invitation for me is the default, unless a paper is really far from my expertise or my workload doesn’t allow it.As junior scientists develop their expertise and make names for themselves, they are increasingly likely to receive invitations to review research manuscripts.It’s an important skill and service to the scientific community, but the learning curve can be particularly steep.I usually consider first the relevance to my own expertise.I will turn down requests if the paper is too far removed from my own research areas, since I may not be able to provide an informed review.(In my field, authors are under pressure to broadly sell their work, and it's my job as a reviewer to address the validity of such claims.) Third, I make sure that the design of the methods and analyses are appropriate. I also pay attention to the schemes and figures; if they are well designed and organized, then in most cases the entire paper has also been carefully thought out.First, I read a printed version to get an overall impression. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself.For every manuscript of my own that I submit to a journal, I review at least a few papers, so I give back to the system plenty.I've heard from some reviewers that they're more likely to accept an invitation to review from a more prestigious journal and don't feel as bad about rejecting invitations from more specialized journals.